Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Kevin VandeWettering Date: Jan 22, 2012 11:37am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hitchcock Films and GATT restoration

Specifically the complaint from ITV was for the following films.

Secret Agent, Jamaica Inn, Young and Innocent, Under Capricorn, The Lady Vanishes, the Phantom Fiend and the Man who knew too much.

I didn't have the rest of these files, but they were in the federal register.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 22, 2012 1:46pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hitchcock Films and GATT restoration

Surprising ITV claimed Under Capricorn. This film has never been in the public domain in the US. The film was first published in the US and was properly registered in 1949 and renewed in 1977. The rights were transferred to New York Community Trust, then sold on the Leo Guttman, who's catalogue ended up with King World. The film is currently owned by CBS TV Distribution (the successor-in-interest to King World Entertainment).

As to the other films, many of them had entered the public domain in the UK before the current copyright act came in. There are many transitional loopholes and grandfathering clauses in the law which mean that their copyrights could not be restored by the copyright extension in UK/European law in the mid 90s.

They are a little bit DMCA happy, but so are many people who don't genuinely own a copyright. You have to ask yourself why these films continue to be sold by the same companies over and over again and ITV and Studio Canal never take anyone to court.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Kevin VandeWettering Date: Jan 22, 2012 7:52pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hitchcock Films and GATT restoration

I don't really understand the court case. It only tells us what the law was way back in 1996. Do I have it wrong? It seems to me that a takedown notice would have stopped a lot of trouble. Why a half million downloads later is someone finally saying boo? What would anyone think? What did the hundreds of thousands of downloaders think? Like I did, they thought it was cool or noone cared.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elmagno Date: Jan 22, 2012 8:47pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: I hope billbarstad is ok

Funny to me, but I will be pulling Under Capricorn from my site, now that I know. bill uploaded it here along with a lot of other non PD stuff. He was very honest in a post saying he was new and eager back when he posted all those great films. I was just like him when I uncritically downloaded them--eager. But too much remains unclear. I've pulled Tulsa so many times it's in Utah now.

Whatever the new ruling means, the meaning won't be clear. PD is a wiggly world, to say the least. The record keeping is incomplete and fragmented. Of course mistakes are made.
Soldier on.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Kevin VandeWettering Date: Jan 24, 2012 12:44am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: I hope billbarstad is ok

At this point I think it means we shouldn't use the Hitchcock films.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Jan 23, 2012 8:53am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: I hope billbarstad is ok

Probably all of the regulars here are wondering where billbarstad is. We hope he comes back.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffpicfixer Date: Jan 24, 2012 6:03am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: I hope billbarstad is ok

I'll add my hope that all is well with Billbarstad, and that he returns soon.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Kevin VandeWettering Date: Jan 22, 2012 11:41am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hitchcock Films and GATT restoration

Nobody needs copyright headaches. I think it might be indicated to err on the side of caution.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Kevin VandeWettering Date: Jan 22, 2012 12:02pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Hitchcock Films and GATT restoration

Maybe someone could help me dig through this and help me understand what other films have been affected. I'm sure it's not none and I don't need to get sued. How all of these have been here for 5 years illegitimately is a bit of a conundrum. Why didn't ITV DMCA these a long time ago?

One batch of films I think needs re-examination is the Arthur Askey movies here. It looks like these may be restored. Also the British made Sherlock Holmes movies might not be kosher either. The TV is ok because UK TV shows are public domain after 50 years.

I think we are treading on thin ice with non-domestic titles.

This post was modified by Kevin VandeWettering on 2012-01-22 19:59:34

This post was modified by Kevin VandeWettering on 2012-01-22 20:02:51

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)